Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Another Short Take on Congregations and Cultural Transformation

In the Chris Walton summary of the UU Board Meeting, there is this, which is presented as being one trustee's response to the Administration's report. :

Rob Eller-Isaacs in the Chris Walton report of the board meeting said that many of our congregations are not performing well.

“Though I agree with your stance that a changing culture requires new ways of bringing efforts to bear,” replied the Rev. Rob Eller-Isaacs, trustee, “I worry that undue emphasis on change in culture may be a dodge for the fact that many of our churches are inadequate churches. I’d hate to see us avoid the work of strengthening the church.”

What do we do about the churches that are not doing well: the churches that don't ever grow, the churches that sit on franchises; the churches that chew up ministers; the churches that teeter on the age of failure; the churches that need some kind of help from somewhere. They are the identified patient of our system.

Note the way that Eller-Isaacs frames this: work with people outside our system (you could call it evangelism) might be 'a dodge' from fixing the inadequate elements inside our system.

Just who is supposed to fix the inadequate congregations of our association? And how?

The UUA has been organized for that task for much of its life. Isn't that what all the investment in district and regional staff has been for: the support of local congregations? Trainings, workshops, interventions by skilled staff. There has been no shortage of those. And the other potential source of help has been our flagship churches, like the one Rob Eller-Isaac serves. But, those churches are more resented for their success, rather than seen as a resource.

The experience suggests that the work is very difficult. Stuck systems tend to stay stuck. There is no shortage of money, or innovative ideas, or enthusiastic ministers for congregations that want to thrive. There is never enough for congregations that are stuck. Our most stuck congregations resist the UUA, resent the nearest successful congregation, and externalize their anxiety about survival. That anxiety ping-pongs around the Association as this pervasive sense that anything anybody does is really work avoidance.

I think the angry response to the Administration's report, as recounted in the World article, is part of that bouncing anxiety: we are not sure what the UUA should be doing, (planting new churches, fixing old churches, modernizing, preserving, rooting out racism, recruiting new ministers, placing old ones, but generally doing more with less), but certainly not whatever it is now proposing!

The experience suggests that many of our "inadequate" churches would just like to be left alone. They might among those typical American Protestant churches which do not last much beyond the lifespan of their founding generation. Nothing lives forever and not all trees grow to the sky.

Maybe it is an act of non-anxious self-differentiated leadership to suggest that we turn outward now, rather than anxiously obsessing about what we think we should be doing, but have no idea how to do.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Alright, here are two direct quotes from the recent report: “If all you do is focus on the congregations, it becomes idolatry.”--Terasa Cooley. “I worry that undue emphasis on change in culture may be a dodge for the fact that many of our churches are inadequate churches. I’d hate to see us avoid the work of strengthening the church.” –Rob Eller-Isaacs.

Tom’s answer to this conundrum is that, “Nothing lives forever and not all trees grow to the sky.”

I ask, “Who or what administrator, group or body in this association of congregations will be empowered to do the work of institutional triage?”

Can any congregation solve its inadequecies by concentrating on its failures? Most of us argue that the community needs to build on its strengths, and engage itself by practices that lead it out of its self focus.

Ministry is defined by the MFC as care of persons (formation and equipping saints as well as counsel) and transformative witness to the world, and we judge candidates on their competency to become ministers based on that understanding. But ministry is not a project of the clergy. Ministry is shared and it is not self development alone, it is about engaging others.

Congregations can not be fixed by technique, and by nasel gazing mission statement exercises. They need to be invited into real mission, healing the brokenness of the world.

With one observation, no congregation is of one mind on its relationship to the wider assocation. Some would like help, and our "darwinian survival of the fitest" culture assumes that each must learn to swim the same strokes. Smaller churches put much work into maintaining governance and administrative structures and that work requires time from the people who otherwise could be doing ministry in the wider world. Small churches become inner focused, and the result is that they do not span generations. Our model of "congregation" does not allow a group of people share in a common ministry, but instead they find themselves sharing in a common budget.

The UU World article is hardly a report of the Board meeting. Two quotes is not a summation. There was a written report, there was conversation, there will be continuing conversation.

What I heard in the report and discussion put less provocatively (and therefore less quotable) our values are congruent with the values of what is emerging among the shapers and doers of cultural tranformation, but our institutions are not congruent. Since institutions are what give power and what provides form for community building that disconnect weakens the cultural transformation, and weakens our wider minstry as faith.

There will not be some "abandoment" of Congregations with staff now chasing some trendy emphasis on cultural transformation, what is being talked about is framing of our work in ministry formation and thinking about the ways to enhance our service to new and emerging institutional forms of UU community.

I have been an after pastor in six of the eight congregations I have served. By after pastor I refer to following the ministry of a colleague or colleagues who has egregiously transgressed the ethical boundaries required of a minister of good character, and in several cases a colleague who engaged in criminal behavior. If you check the literature, you will see that the symptoms of troubled churches mirror the symptoms of churches where ministers or other trusted leaders have engaged in serious ethical breaches. Numerically, within our association, more than half our congregations that had ministerial leadership, have suffered egregious misconduct in the years since 1960. Even though this issue has been on our radar over the past 30 years, no UUA programs have been developed to address the suffering and resulting dysfunction caused by clergy and staff abuse of the congregation. In my current congregation which was recently victimized by a minister who committed sexual assault several times, the MFC initially gave final Fellowship with no supervision to the perpetrator until it received a second report. The financially devastated congregation had to rely on a generous donor to spend money to bring in help for the congregation (nothing is/was available for the victims and their families) to ameliorate the problem and had to depend on me to find the needed resources. The only resource offered was some financial help to me for some coaching --- which was slashed suddenly at a key time. However, that $8000 investment in this congregation by a generous member will make the difference between a healthy congregation and the other five which range between one which is A LOST CAUSE (Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here) or moribund to several that habitually underperform. Thus, my experience is not that the UUA could not make a difference to help congregations thrive, but that it has failed to use its resources wisely and strategically to do so. I believe this is, in part, because there is not enough wisdom about congregations and experience with a wide variety of congregation amongst those with influence at the UUA. Only John Buehrens, for example, had served more than a single congregation before becoming UUA President and one of our recent Presidents had no experience leading a church. Quite a number of lovely staff members are similarly handicapped. So I guess I would quibble with the "If all you do is focus on congregations...." premise. Only during John's presidency did I feel the UUA was appropriately focused on congregations and knew something about them and what might be needed. I have seen appropriate help and intervention at a local level make a huge difference --- even at the level of financial return for investment for the UUA -- but too often, as in the egregious instances I cited above, the assistance has been unavailable or insufficient.

By way of addressing the concern that a couple of quotes are not the whole story, I posted the following on my Facebook feed.

There has been some recent "backing and forthing" in the UU blogosphere concerning ends, means, transformation, throughput and idolatry based on quotes from a UU staff member and a Trustee as reported in the World. No one has called these quotes inaccurate but some have said that they do not give a complete picture of the situation. The UU Board has a Facebook page and a blog of its own; their meetings are always open to observers. Their next meeting is in Boston from April 10-13. Few will have that much free time nor do I; however, if you are close enough perhaps you will join me in attending some of this meeting.

As a follow up on my post of some weeks ago concerning attending the April meeting of the UU Board, I spent this day observing the first of their four days of meeting in Boston. I applaud many of the actions recently taken by the Board, and while I am concerned by some discussions underway, I cannot doubt the sincerity, good faith and dedication of these very hard-working people. Agree or disagree, they deserve thanks.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We are talking about the historical context of the 1940's and 1950's Liberal Religion. The first factor was the Cold War; the second factor was Suburbanization, and the third was the emergence of integrationist Civil Rights Movement, mostly in the South: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Unitarians and Universalists were largely sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In this, they were moving in that direction with a larger force of white liberals. The question that I have is "how did those U/U's see the theological justification for that alliance?"

In 1946, in the immediate aftermath of the war, A. Powell Davies proclaimed in: ‘A Faith of an Unrepentant Liberal”: calling Unitarianism “the faith that begins in individual freedom of belief and goes to the limitless, building throughout the world the Free and Universal Church." Davies was centering a universal movement toward freedom in…

The institutional DNA of the Unitarian Universalist Association was established at the time of merger. (I am talking about the UUA, not individual congregations, or this larger thing of the "liberal religious tradition in the USA")

I see three governing assumptions that come down from the time of merger.

(1) We are going to be bigger. The merger generation assumed that we were poised to become the religious movement that captured the emerging new consensus: progressive, modernist, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant. Millions of people were coming our way; our work was to make them room.

The problem with the assumption that we are the verge of growth is that it has created a recurring frustration, a nagging "what is wrong with us?" bouncing around in our collective heads.

(2) The merger generation thought that public ministry was our most important work. The President would be our public spokesperson, and their ideal ministry setting was the steps of the Capitol.

In 1947, President of the American Unitarian Association, Frederick May Eliot, proposed the formation of the United Liberal Church of America, which would be created by the coming together of Reformed Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Ethical Culture, and religious liberals “of every name and sign”.

Eliot’s proposal was in tune with the times. World War 2 had been won through the creation of a large multi-national alliance of nations. The postwar era continued that trend; it was all about creating big institutions. In the postwar period, NATO was created and the European Common Market, and the United Nations. Big was good; big equalled power. President Eliot saw that the need to create a larger and more powerful institution for liberal religion. He had a specific understanding of what was needed for liberal religious growth — institutional strength.

The desire for greater institutional strength led eventually to the merger of the Unitarians and Universalists in 1961; it was a much more…

I wonder if the UUA's stuckness on race isn't built into our DNA, established at the time of merger. As I have mentioned before, our formation came in a particular time of history (1961) and at a particular time in the development of liberal religion.

Religious liberals were polarized between theists and humanists, and as a consequence turned toward public ministry as a way to unify.

At that point in time, the early 1960's, Racial Liberalism was the prevailing social vision. (Racial Liberalism can be defined as Integration and the minimization of racial difference. Color-blindness as a goal.)

In the absence of deeper theological unity, Racial Liberalism became the practical embodiment of Universalism, what we understood ourselves to be. Not just what we believed, but what we were.

You can see it in the shocked white response to the formation of black-only UU organizations in the late 1960's. Race-based caucusing was seen to a violation of something fundamental about…

Time to turn off the cell phones.Time to put the pagers on stun.It’s even time to put a piece of duct tape on the face of your watch.It’s Christmas Eve and time is standing still for a moment. It is the time, maybe the only time of the year, when here and now drift away and we fall under the spell of story-time. Tonight we are both here, AND on a lonely hillside outside of Bethlehem. Tonight, we are with each other, friends and family, returning students and relatives from far away, AND we are also with the Magi, on a journey and such a hard time for journey. Tonight we listen to our choir, AND we listen to choirs of angels, a whole heavenly host of angels we have heard on high. Tonight, like every night, is new, a never happening before moment in onrushing time, AND yet, we have been here before, done this before, told this story before, and heard it before. There is way that the story we tell tonight is always happening: birth and death and taxes, weary travelers with no place to stay, b…

Regular Readers and Followers

Popular Posts

We are talking about the historical context of the 1940's and 1950's Liberal Religion. The first factor was the Cold War; the second factor was Suburbanization, and the third was the emergence of integrationist Civil Rights Movement, mostly in the South: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Unitarians and Universalists were largely sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In this, they were moving in that direction with a larger force of white liberals. The question that I have is "how did those U/U's see the theological justification for that alliance?"

In 1946, in the immediate aftermath of the war, A. Powell Davies proclaimed in: ‘A Faith of an Unrepentant Liberal”: calling Unitarianism “the faith that begins in individual freedom of belief and goes to the limitless, building throughout the world the Free and Universal Church." Davies was centering a universal movement toward freedom in…

The institutional DNA of the Unitarian Universalist Association was established at the time of merger. (I am talking about the UUA, not individual congregations, or this larger thing of the "liberal religious tradition in the USA")

I see three governing assumptions that come down from the time of merger.

(1) We are going to be bigger. The merger generation assumed that we were poised to become the religious movement that captured the emerging new consensus: progressive, modernist, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant. Millions of people were coming our way; our work was to make them room.

The problem with the assumption that we are the verge of growth is that it has created a recurring frustration, a nagging "what is wrong with us?" bouncing around in our collective heads.

(2) The merger generation thought that public ministry was our most important work. The President would be our public spokesperson, and their ideal ministry setting was the steps of the Capitol.

In 1947, President of the American Unitarian Association, Frederick May Eliot, proposed the formation of the United Liberal Church of America, which would be created by the coming together of Reformed Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Ethical Culture, and religious liberals “of every name and sign”.

Eliot’s proposal was in tune with the times. World War 2 had been won through the creation of a large multi-national alliance of nations. The postwar era continued that trend; it was all about creating big institutions. In the postwar period, NATO was created and the European Common Market, and the United Nations. Big was good; big equalled power. President Eliot saw that the need to create a larger and more powerful institution for liberal religion. He had a specific understanding of what was needed for liberal religious growth — institutional strength.

The desire for greater institutional strength led eventually to the merger of the Unitarians and Universalists in 1961; it was a much more…

I wonder if the UUA's stuckness on race isn't built into our DNA, established at the time of merger. As I have mentioned before, our formation came in a particular time of history (1961) and at a particular time in the development of liberal religion.

Religious liberals were polarized between theists and humanists, and as a consequence turned toward public ministry as a way to unify.

At that point in time, the early 1960's, Racial Liberalism was the prevailing social vision. (Racial Liberalism can be defined as Integration and the minimization of racial difference. Color-blindness as a goal.)

In the absence of deeper theological unity, Racial Liberalism became the practical embodiment of Universalism, what we understood ourselves to be. Not just what we believed, but what we were.

You can see it in the shocked white response to the formation of black-only UU organizations in the late 1960's. Race-based caucusing was seen to a violation of something fundamental about…

Time to turn off the cell phones.Time to put the pagers on stun.It’s even time to put a piece of duct tape on the face of your watch.It’s Christmas Eve and time is standing still for a moment. It is the time, maybe the only time of the year, when here and now drift away and we fall under the spell of story-time. Tonight we are both here, AND on a lonely hillside outside of Bethlehem. Tonight, we are with each other, friends and family, returning students and relatives from far away, AND we are also with the Magi, on a journey and such a hard time for journey. Tonight we listen to our choir, AND we listen to choirs of angels, a whole heavenly host of angels we have heard on high. Tonight, like every night, is new, a never happening before moment in onrushing time, AND yet, we have been here before, done this before, told this story before, and heard it before. There is way that the story we tell tonight is always happening: birth and death and taxes, weary travelers with no place to stay, b…